J.D. Vance (3:05)

A lot of young people are saying housing is way too expensive. Why is that? Because we flooded the country with 30 million illegal immigrants who were taking houses that ought, by right go to American citizens. And at the same time, we weren't building enough new houses to begin with, even for the population that we had of the house is actually evicted from the house because there are people who are going to pay more for rent. And then what happens is 20 people move into a three bedroom house. 20 people from a totally different culture, totally different ways of interacting. Again, we can respect their dignity while also being angry at the Biden administration for letting that situation happening and recognizing that their next door neighbors are going to say, well, wait a second, what is going on here? I don't know these people. They don't speak the same language that I do. And because there are 20 in the house next door, it's a little bit rowdier than it was when there was just a family of four, a family of five. It is totally reasonable and and acceptable for American citizens to look at their next door neighbors and say, I want to live next to people who I have something in common with. I don't want to live next to four families of strangers.

David Frum (4:15)

MSNBC political analyst, host of the Bulwark Podcast, Tim Miller's here. Tim, they have blamed and sought to dehumanize people in this country illegally as well as asylum seekers since the beginning of the MAGA brand. It actually predates J.D. vance's attachment to the brand. But this smear from J.D. vance that the housing crisis is because of 30 million people in this country illegally seems like the bottom of the rungs that they've touched. And I've stopped saying that they can't go any lower. But it also doesn't have any association with the truth. But it does reveal. It's like Mask off. We're just going to blame people who've come to this country from other places for absolutely everything. See if we can stir the hate pot a little more frothy.

Tim Miller (5:06)

Yeah, it's funny. As somebody who has to suffer through J.D. vance's interviews, a couple of weeks ago he was on, I think it was the New York Post, and he's telling a different story about immigrant housing. He was once again smearing immigrants, but he was, he was talking about how people get upset because they're living in the suburbs. And he's talking about how American citizens have a right to get upset if somebody moves into your neighborhood and they buy a three bedroom house and 20 people move into the house and they speak a different language and it's getting rowdy over there. He didn't mention the cat eating, but the host then did and he laughed about that. So, like, on the one hand, you know, all of the migrants are in the country, are jamming into one house like a clown car and eating pets, and then two weeks later it's like, well, that's not actually true. They've bought 30 million houses and your house is expensive because of them. Because migrants are coming into the country and I guess competing with millennials for the condos, the apartments they want to buy in Brooklyn. He doesn't care. Right. It's just like at the moment, whatever argument he could make to blame immigrants is the argument he's going to make because it's a safe place for him. He knows that Donald Trump won't get mad at him if he does that. He knows that the MAGA base put them in because of animus towards immigrants. And so that's all he's going to do. I would. There's one other thing they've done this week that I think is worth noting on the, on the costs, because they have considered one policy change and that is they're thinking about rolling back some of the tariffs. The New York Times is reporting this yesterday, and that caught my eye. So it's like, that's interesting. You think that rolling back the tariffs is going to lower prices. I think that would imply that putting the tariffs on raised the prices. You would think. And so, you know, that, I think is the only substantive move that they have made or that they're talking about making is rolling back what they did to create the problem in the first place.

David Frum (7:00)

An unbelievable legacy for Scott Besant. I don't know if Howard Letnick realizes that'll be his legacy or cares, but Besant should.

Tim Miller (7:09)

Yeah, there's some reporting on itself, where I came on and how well Letnick's family is doing in the markets right now. Just coincidence, I guess. That's better than ever. So that might be his legacy, it turns out. But look, here's the thing, Besant. You know, when you came in to Trump 2.0, most of these, most of the people that came to the Cabinet this time, as we discussed, you know, different than 1.0, were fully on board with the agenda, right? There were just a couple of people that were pointed to that were that people were saying, well, maybe they can be bumpers on some elements of his agenda. Marco Rubio at State and Besant at Treasury, you know, the two most noteworthy, and I guess at times it seems like Besant did, you know, protect Trump and Letnick from their worst impulses, particularly back in the spring when they were really pressing the gas on the tariffs. But once that was accomplished, Letnick has now spent the last six months doing exactly what Marjorie Taylor Greene said not to do at the beginning. Gaslighting, people spinning, speaking illiterately about the economy, saying things he knows are not true, about what the impact of the tariffs are going to be on the economy, about the trajectory of the economy, about what things are costing the American people these days, decided to do it in a very kind of haughty manner. And eventually the bill's going to come due for that. Because the economy is one thing. Look, you can trick people, you can trick your own supporters, not the whole country, into thinking that you won the election when you lost. Right? Because they don't know any different one way or the other. Right. They're being told something by people that they trust. You can't trick them into thinking that their grocery bill is lower than it is. Right. They experience that when they go to the store every week. And I think that is going. So it's going to be much harder for Trump and Besant and Lutnick to use the tools they used in the 2020 election to trick their own voters into advancing a big lie when it comes to the economy. Much tougher on the economy than it was on democracy.

David Frum (9:11)

The knocking down of the White House isn't just a story about destroying something that people value and associate with the government and the country's identity. It's about building himself the most opulent thing that's ever been built by the American state.

Ian Bassin (9:28)

It's also an example of his disregard for people who are closest to him. In this case, literally, because it looks like he's filling the White house ventilation system with deadly asbestos because the East Wing was built during World War II and people used asbestos to fireproof. And when you demolish such a building in the modern age, you need elaborate safeguards to protect the workers and the people next door, and those don't look like to have been put in place. One of the go to movements moves when things begin to go south for this kind of authoritarian leader, as Ian well knows, is military adventurism. And we are seeing a revival of that. The threats against Venezuela and just more recently a revival of the threatening language against Denmark and Greenland. I don't know how excited the American people are going to be to have a giant glacier island all of their very own, against the will of the people who live there and in violation of NATO treaties with Denmark. But that seems to be one of the things you're going to get instead of affordable pasta.

David Frum (10:23)

It's amazing. Tim Miller, you get the last word. I'm still hanging on the idea of the four people who were exposed to Covid during Trump one now breathing in asbestos in Trump two.

Tim Miller (10:34)

Yeah, I wanted to hear more from David Frum, actually, but I guess briefly my last thought is I agree with what he just said. And if it is true that he decides that his way out of this is more aggressive action in Venezuela or Greenland or otherwise Canada, I guess I think that that is not a path to success for him because I think that the Trump, the elements of the Trump base that are the most vulnerable, that he's most vulnerable to losing, the people that are upset about Epstein, the folks that are more lower income and are more sensitive to costs, they are also the folks that were more interested in his isolationist pivot. People that he brought into the party were the ones that didn't like the adventurism of Republican presidents past. And so I think that frankly, it would be potentially the best way to get that number down into the low 30s would be to try to wag the dog this thing. But I don't think that that's necessarily going to stop him.